Press advisory for JK speech in DC on Tuesday: Political Gridlock-- A Risk to America's Leadership?

[Luftmensch067]

ADVISORY: Sen. Kerry on Political Gridlock-- A Risk to America's Leadership?

January 11, 2011, 10:00am – 11:00am

Admission is free.

RSVP to attend this event

Featured speaker:

Senator John Kerry

Introduction by:

John Podesta, Counselor and Chair, Center for American Progress Action Fund

As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century we cannot ignore the real danger that our political institutions are mired in gridlock, as overheated ideology and partisan infighting leave us increasingly less able to address the tremendous economic challenges that lie ahead. Every one of the domestic challenges that policymakers will be called upon to confront has global implications. While U.S. policymakers engage in political squabbles that are preventing progress, other countries are making deliberate policy choices to move their economies forward. The decisions we make now—or fail to make—when it comes to new energy sources, education, technology, research and development, deficits, debt, entitlements, and infrastructure will determine whether the United States will continue to lead the world—or be left scrambling to catch up and follow the lead of other nations. It is in short a question of whether this will be another “American” century.

Please join the Center for American Progress Action Fund as it hosts the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who will offer his perspective on the urgent need to restore a sense of purpose to the U.S. political process.

January 11, 2011, 10:00am – 11:00am

Space is extremely limited. RSVP required. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis and not guaranteed.

Coffee will be served at 9:30 a.m.

Center for American Progress Action Fund 1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005

Map & Directions

Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center

RSVP to attend this event

For more information, call 202-682-1611.

###

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is the sister advocacy organization of the Center for American Progress. The Action Fund transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. The Action Fund is also the home of the Progress Report.

[Luftmensch067]

1. P.S.

I called the Action Fund's number to ask them if they were planning to film and archive the speech online. They passed me along to voicemail for someone on the Events Team. No call back yet. I would urge others to contact them as well. It sounds to me like this could be one of JK's key speeches and we all know what kind of coverage the press will probably provide -- very little, if any! Contact C-SPAN, too, and ask them to film it.

JK on this topic is something everyone in the country desperately needs a chance to see and hear.

[YvonneCa]

5. I agree. I think it needs to be live on...

...C-Span. This sounds like one of his 'visional', leadership-type speeches that will set the tone forward. It needs to be seen. The more of us that call and request it, the better. Thanks for the heads up on this, Luftmensch067. :hi:

[Luftmensch067]

2. Great news!

According to the events guy I just spoke to, like the recent China speech, this one will be streamed live at their website and then, if I understood him correctly, archived and available to watch. Can't wait to see Senator Kerry speak on this topic!

[karynnj]

3. Yay! For your calling, the subject matter and the news that there will be a speech

This is something that Kerry has spoken of informally since at least 2005. His own actions on various things - like the successful ratification of START, his incredible outreach on the environment that should have been successful, and his many small business and veterans bills - show that he serious does work to find common ground.

(I agree that people need to hear this - but I am not certain whether the tea drunk party or our own "don't compromise" left will be like it less. )

I hope that we will hear something about Sudan by then as well - as they will still be in the midst of their referendum.

[TayTay]

4. This speech might have extra resonance, given the tragic events this weekend

I would love to hear Sen. Kerry's thoughts on this. I think they will be well worth listneing to and very thoughtful.

[YvonneCa]

6. That's what I think, too...

...Tay. This will be THE speech on the subject. Senator Kerry has been about uniting the country in everything he says and does. The failure of all of us to do that has serious consequences for our country. The events in Tucson were as predictable as they were horrific.

I very much look forward to the Senator's thoughts on this, too.

[MBS]

7. Please may this be archived!

I won't be able to watch the live streaming, but I am SO eager to hear what he has to say.
Anyone who does get to watch this in real time, please report to us!!

[ladym55]

8. I hope it's archived, too

This will be a very important speech, and I really want to hear what JK has to say. I think it will comfort me a little. This weekend has shaken me to my foundation.

[YvonneCa]

9. ...

...:hug:

[ladym55]

10. Thanks

I needed that.

[Inuca]

11. Looking forward to your comments here

since I will not be able to watch, live or otherwise (of, how I hate my satellite ISP!), unless somehow catch it on CSPAN. Very timely, not only, or not mainly, because of Tucson, but because of the filibuster discussion and forthcoming votes.

[YvonneCa]

12. Here's a link for a LIVE webcast...

...from the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events

I'm hoping to watch tomorrow...

[Luftmensch067]

13. Thanks for the link!!! n/t

[Mass]

14. Thanks for the link.

[karynnj]

17. Thanks!

[YvonneCa]

20. You guys are all very welcome. :)

[karynnj]

25. wrong place

[Luftmensch067]

15. Wahoo! CSPAN 2 lists it live tomorrow!

Not a guarantee that it will be live, but it looks like a guarantee that they're filming it!

I am very happy. :-)

[karynnj]

16. Yay!

[wisteria]

18. Oh, thank you so much for posting this! I am looking forward to hearing this speech. n/t

[YvonneCa]

19. WAHOO is right!!! Thanks for letting us know. I'll...

...be up watching tomorrow at 7. :hi:

[Inuca]

21. Double wahoo!

I may stay in today and therefore be able to watch. Incidentaly, I went to the C-SPAN site, the front page says that Kerry will be on C-SPAN3, but the actual schedule says C-SPAN2. I obviously assume that the schedule is the correct one. Why is C-SPAN3 barely available, I wonder...

[Luftmensch067]

22. Oh, good clue, though...

You never can tell with C-SPAN. If it doesn't show up on 2, I'll check 3.

[Luftmensch067]

23. Looks like CSPAN 3, after all!

Please tune in at 10:00 am today as Senator Kerry delivers a speech in Washington on political gridlock, the urgent need to restore a sense of purpose to the U.S. political process, and the global economic consequences of the breakdown in Washington. At the top of his remarks, Sen. Kerry will address the tragedy this weekend in Tucson and the discussion that’s ensued about the state of our political discourse.

The speech will be broadcast live on CSPAN 3.

Edited to add -- except now both the front page AND the schedule say CSPAN 2. ARRRRGH!

[Luftmensch067]

24. Sorry for all the confusion -- just called CSPAN -- it's CSPAN2

The guy checked their internal schedule. I told him thanks to CSPAN for recording what sounds like it will be an important speech.

[Inuca]

32. It's nuts, isn't it?

Their web site is top notch now, with some truly amazing stuff, but a reliable, easy to follow schedule seems to be beyond their abilities. I understand that some things cannot be known for sure, no problem with that, but sometimes it's just amazing how confusing the scheduling information is.

[karynnj]

26. On CSPAN2,

Edited on Tue Jan-11-11 10:13 AM by karynnj
Podesta is now giving an introduction of JK.

(Warning: I am not capturing the eloquence and meaning in what JK is saying - and realize that these words need to be heard or read. This is a fantastic speech.)


Starts listing all the important things that are happening, mentions that we need to get down to the hard business of governing. Mentions New START. He then spoke of Giffords and the need to tone down the rhetoric and work together. Now giving JK's bio.

JK spoke of New START being a tremendous team effort. He then asked if this should have been postponed, but decided that it was right to give this speech. He is speaking of the horrific event. A public servant went to meet with her constituents - an attack on our democracy. Spoke of the irony of hearing this while in Sudan. There is work needed to revitalize our own democracy. Some pundits are rethinking their words. He spoke of the need to change the level of civility.


Now speaking of how legislators are not working together. Spoke of how START should have easily gotten more votes. Quotes mayor of NYC that there is no Republican or Democratic way to plow the streets. He speaks of how building infrastructure should not be partisan. Speaking of how we are living off the infrastructure built decades ago (Eisenhower), Spoke of other countries efforts and how we are not keeping up. $250 billion needed to meet current infrastructure needs. Other countries doing this because they have infrastructure bank. We need one.

(I WANT PRESIDENT KERRY!!!! Lacking that, I hope Obama is listening on this. )

US 10th in global competitiveness in the G20. Investors have pulled money out of domestic funds to international funds. Research labs being created out side the US. Need to replace the prepetual cacophony of the perpetual campaign. Asked of tea party peopel: Do they want a government too small to have invented the internet? Do they want a government too small to give car companies a second chance? Too small to invest in research? Can't pretent that the budget can be balanced by cutting waste and getting rid of earmarks. Mentioned the 1990s - tough choices and they invested in small businesses and the economy.

Speaking of green energy - China had 5% of solar panels 2 years ago- now it producing over 60% - for a technology invented here at Bell Labs. Speaking of China being the biggest growing wind market. Mentioned that a Deustse Bank expert said the US is asleep at the wheel on this and he has moved investment elsewhere. Kerry speaks of jobs to be had on this now. Too many candidates ran promising NOT to work with the other side. Not asking people to leave their values at the door, but some of the most partisan people have found common ground. Gave liberal Moyhnahan and Simpson. (Spoke of Reagan, Dole and Tip O'Neil - one agreement was both sides promised not to demagogue issues when running for office.) Ted Kennedy and Orrin hatch an example of two people with strong ideology who had people listening when they agreed. Said that major things don't usually come the mushy middle.

Speaking of filibuster - mentioned his filibuster of ANWR. Said that it is now used as a tool - not just when there is a close issue. Spoke of how one was used to slow the funding of the military in a time of war. He now is quoting Dodd - as the key thing being whether the 100 Senators work together.

[karynnj]

27. Here is AP

US Senator John Kerry said Tuesday that a weekend assassination attempt on a US lawmaker had highlighted deep political rifts that cripple national efforts to compete with rising powers like China.

Kerry, in a prepared speech, called the attack on Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords as "an assault on our democracy" but called for reaching past "simple questions" of whether superheated political rhetoric was to blame.

"In the weeks and months ahead, the real issue we need to confront isn't just what role divisive political rhetoric may have played on Saturday -- but it's the violence divisive, overly simplistic dialogue does to our democracy every day," the Massachusetts senator said in the remarks
<snip>
"The 21st Century can be another American century, but only if we restore a larger sense of responsibility and replace the clattering cacophony of the perpetual campaign with a wider discussion of what is best for our country," he said in the remarks, which were released by his office.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUEl_cyrcyuTL3oszCh53syfBTOg?docId=CNG.f41f04cec6adef03d940f980c6f65e88.1b1

[karynnj]

28. The Hill:

They lead with Kerry's questions on how small government should be:

warned incoming Republicans Tuesday morning against cutting back the size of government so much that it cannot contribute to U.S. productivity.

"Do they want a government too limited to have invented the Internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications?" he asked at one point.

<snip>
" government too small to give America’s auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? Taxes too low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures disease, and defends our country?" he said in remarks to the Center for American Progress.

"We have to get past slogans and soundbites, reason together and talk in real terms about how America can do its best," he added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/137195-sen-kerry-warns-against-government-too-limited-to-have-invented-the-internet

[Mass]

29. That would mean the Republicans have any idea where the Internet comes from.

They probably think it is an invention from the private sector (Google and Microsoft).

[karynnj]

31. Whoa - I didn't think of that

I remember when it was the ARPA net back in the early 1970s and just used to exchange data.

I can see them thinking it was google and microsoft or joking that it Al Gore, when he was one of the people who won funding for it at various times.

[Inuca]

35. You have been at it longer than me

I came around during Bitnet times, remember that? I used to rely on it, among other things, to communicate and trasfer stuff wiht my advisor when he was away... God, we are old :-)!

[karynnj]

37. Actually, you used it before me

I knew of it because others where I worked used it to share data and one co-worker left to work at BB&N, which designed the backbone of the internet. I personally first used it at work when it was already usenet.

[Inuca]

34. You mean there was an Internet

before the Google? No way!

[karynnj]

30. Full transcript of remarks as prepared in this MSNBC article

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/11/5813646-kerry-derides-divisive-overly-simplistic-dialogue

(No excerpt - as it's JK's speech!)

[YvonneCa]

36. Ezra Klein, WAPO, posted this...

...http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/if_you_read_only_one_john_kerr.html EXCELLENT. I also posted it in GD if anyone wants to read it there... :7

[karynnj]

38. Wow - this is fantastic

It kind of matched my feeling as the speech went on - that was kind of like what I felt at the two Faneuil Hall speeches. I know I am biased, but no one else currently in politics (explicitly not Obama) has written and given so many speeches that really have the focus and vision that Kerry has - and the eloquence is just a bonus.

[karynnj]

40. Video

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SGlobalL

[wisteria]

41. Pressed for time, I was going to skim through it, but I as I kept reading along, I found myself

wanting to read more.
A very, very good speech that I hope gets the air play it needs, and more important, it gets through to partisans on both sides.

[YvonneCa]

45. I'm biased, too, but I think you are...

...right. This is both the 'vision setting' speech the country needs AND the speech that explains what we need to do to overcome the current political climate (what the barriers are, how to overcome them, why we must, what is at stake) to reach that vision. This is why I still say President Kerry. ;)

I hope it gets the play in the media it deserves. That Ezra Klein article was a great start...actually including the text. BTW, the Q and A was also good, as usual. :)

[Inuca]

47. Q&A

good, but WAY to short :-(

[YvonneCa]

48. It was. Seems he has a busy...

...schedule. :) I don't think the guy ever sleeps. :7

[Inuca]

43. Would you mind posting some good excerpts?

For some very bizarre reason, most WaPo pages would not load on my home computer! It loads almost everything, and then at the very end I get an error, "operation aborted", and the page goes blank. The only site where I have something like this happening. Sometimes I manage to trick it by stopping the loading when I see that the text seems to be all there, did not work today, probably because my lopusy connection is even lousier than usual because of the weather :-(.

[YvonneCa]

46. Way more at the link, but here's a sampling...

...for you:



As I first said last month, we as a people face another Sputnik moment today. And the great question is whether we will meet this moment as Americans did so boldly five decades ago. The decisions we make – or fail to make – in this decade on new energy sources, on education, infrastructure, technology, and research , all of which are going to produce the jobs of the future, and our decisions on deficits and entitlements will without doubt determine whether the United States will continue to lead the world – or be left to follow in the wake of others, on the way to decline, less prosperous in our own land and less secure in the world. Some will question how in the world this could be possible – America less prosperous? America on the decline? They forget that exceptionalism for America has never been an automatic fact – a birthright on autopilot – but an inheritance of opportunity to be renewed and revitalized by each generation. So, let me share some facts with you. Right now, other developed and developing countries are making far-reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in a new and very different global era. But instead of us responding as Americans have in the past, the frustrating reality is that our American political system is increasingly paralyzed and Balkanized into a patchwork of narrow interests that have driven the larger “national good” far from the national dialogue altogether. Increasingly, overheated ideology and partisan infighting leave us less able to address or even comprehend the decisive nature and scale of the challenges that will decide our whole future.

The fact is – our strength at home determines our strength in the world. And other countries are constantly taking our measure, sizing us up, watching our politics, measuring our gridlock. On issue after issue, enduring consensus has been frayed or shredded by lust for power cloaked in partisan games. Health care’s individual mandate? Guess what -- it started as a Republican idea-- a pro-business idea-- because rising insurance costs leave big holes in profits. Cap and trade? Guess again -- another Republican idea based on market principles and, with bipartisanship, successfully implemented by President George Herbert Walker Bush, now denounced as ideological heresy. And energy independence? For forty years, every President since Richard Nixon has recognized that foreign oil imports are America’s Achilles heel. But whenever we’ve had a chance to act, we’ve been blocked by entrenched influence and the siren call of short-term interest instead of achieving long-term success. Even as we were clawing our way to the ratification of START Treaty last month, I noted that far more ambitious treaties had previously been ratified by votes of 90 or 95 to zero. I joked that in this Senate, in this hyper-partisan Washington, 67 might be the new 95. I’m proud that in the end we sent a signal to the world that in American foreign policy, however uphill the slog and improbable the victory, partisan politics can still stop at the water’s edge. But the fact remains that it was closer than it ever should have been. All of this underscores the current danger to our country in ways that go far beyond that single debate and highlight a host of other issues that demand and deserve common resolve, not constant suspicion and division. If treaties ratified almost unanimously yesterday get just 71 votes today, what’s the forecast for other decisive endeavors that once would have commanded 79 votes in the Senate? We can’t afford for the old 79 to become the new 49, dooming our national will to unbreakable gridlock. Because in the 21st century where choices and consequences come at us so much faster than ever before, the price of Senate inaction isn’t just that we will stand still; it isn't just that America will fall behind; it's that we will stay behind as we cede the best possibilities of this young century to others who are more disciplined.

Just think about an issue as simple and fundamental as building and investing in America – an issue that was once so clearly bi-partisan. The Republican Mayor of New York City Fiorello LaGuardia famously said: “There’s no Republican or Democratic way to clean the streets.” Well, for decades there was no Democratic or Republican way to build roads and bridges and airports. The building of America was every American’s job. This wasn’t narrow pork; it was a national priority. But today, we’re still living off and wearing out the infrastructure put in place by Republicans and Democrats together, starting with President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. We didn’t build it; our parents and grandparents did. Now partisan paralysis has kept us from renewing that inheritance even as it decays from neglect. And the question is – what are we building for our children and our future generations? Reliable, modern infrastructure isn’t a luxury. It’s the lifeblood of our economy-- the key to connecting our markets, moving products and people, generating and sustaining millions of jobs for American workers, to not wasting hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of gallons of gas on clogged highways. In the face of global competition, our growth and exports are directly tied to the modernity of our infrastructure. As we invest too little and our competitors invest more and more, the harder and harder it will be to catch up – and the more and more attractive those countries will be for future investments. In 2009 China spent an estimated $350 billion on infrastructure-- 9 percent of its GDP. Europe’s infrastructure bank financed $350 billion in projects across the continent from 2005 to 2009, modernizing seaports, expanding airports and high-speed rail lines, and reconfiguring city centers. Brazil invested over $240 billion in infrastructure in the past three years alone, with an additional $340 billion planned over the next three years.

And what about us? Well, we know that Americans have always been builders. We built a transcontinental railroad. We built an interstate highway system. We built the rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the solar system and beyond. But as a result of our political gridlock and attention to the short-term, that’s not what we’re doing today. For too long we’ve underbuilt and underinvested, and too much of what we have done has been uninformed by any long-term strategic plan. In 2008, it was estimated that we had to make an annual investment of $250 billion for the next 50 years to legitimately meet our transportation needs. Right now, we aren’t even close to that. Right now, we are as many miles away from it as we ought to be building to get there. Other countries are doing what we ought to do. They’re racing ahead because they created infrastructure banks to build a new future ; but we’ve yet to build a new consensus for our own national infrastructure bank to make Americans the world’s builders again-- and to keep our country the leader in the new world economy. Imagine the possibilities that would come from this endeavor - financing projects from high-speed rail to air and sea ports, all with the expectation of being repaid, lending directly to economically viable initiatives of both national and regional significance, without political influence, run in an open and transparent manner by experienced professionals with meaningful Congressional oversight. That is an indispensable strategy for prosperity and a legitimate vision that Americans could embrace. And if we offer America the leadership it deserves, it ought to be an undoubted opportunity and necessity for bi-partisanship.

[politicasista]

52. Mr. Klein makes sense, but this may be a bad idea

Posted this article at the http://weeseeyou.com/2011/01/11/w-e-e-peeps-tuesday-link-sweep-evening-edition-5/">WSY blog with some responses.

The comments didn't sound like they were directed at Senator Kerry personally, but this is seen as just another person trying to tell the President what to say. Klein's article is being dismissed as a waste of time and "drivel" by Obama Democrats (aka the President's ardent supporters).

While the speech was nice, they would rather wait and listen to President Obama give his speech his way in his own words, or read a transcript of what he said. And others should keep their opinions to themselves. OTOH, a GDer felt while it is a great speech, it may be seen as "too political" in an environment where the focus should be on the grieving families, Congresswoman Giffords' recovery, and healing Arizona and America. He should hit it out the park like he always does.

BTW, thanks for posting. :)

[Mass]

53. People may disagree. No biggie

That these posters on the blog you quote (and that I do not know) may want to listen to Obama is fine. I think they realize that he is not the only person allowed to speak.

I have not seen the GD poster, but this is fine as well.

I dont see why it should be a bad idea? Because a couple of people dont think it is a good one?


Unfortunately, anyway, I have not seen any blogger except Ezra Klein comment about it.

[politicasista]

55. Ok

It was one a good GD thread that YvonneCa put up. No biggie.

As for the blog, some of them are positive towards the Senator. Though they wish that he and other Democrats would out there for Obama more, they still appreciate Obama having him as a special person on Sudan, FP and other stuff. They can be out there, but it isn't their fault if the media doesn't want to hear from them. They just have to find other options.

It may not be a bad idea, but a lot of Obama supporters feel that these same pundits/experts who bash him on a daily basis, somehow write articles telling him what he should or should not say. It is a speech for the city of Tucson, state of Arizona, for America, the healing/recovery of Congresswoman Giffords, and the families left behind. Regardless of what he says, it will be emotional and from the heart. Wonder if Kerry knew the Congresswoman or raised money for her campaign, not that it's important, just curious.

Even though the article was mostly about the speech that Kerry made (and Klein thought that it was a speech that Obama should have given) it was more about that with Sudan, Climate Change, China and etc, but because the Senator branded as, you know (not saying he is, but that is still the perception), many probably didn't want to take notice, unless Obama himself gave it. The good threads on this dropped like rocks, but slams on him for anything get more attention (not surprising).


As for the speech, liked it, it was sharp, though will have to catch the rest of it later on video.


Sorry to say anything, thoughts are jumbled now. Peace.

[karynnj]

56. I think that many were taking too literal a view of Klein's comment

I take Klein's comment to be admiration for a well crafted speech dealing with how we move the economy forward - and arguing that it could and should be bipartisan. I think it was as much a throw away line - as my saying mid way through watching it - that he would have been an incredible President. His line suggests that with the additional sentiment that we need Obama to use his incredible oratory to put out a vision of what he thinks we need to do to succeed.

I think on WSY, the problem was partly the way it was presented - that led people to think that it was what Obama should say in AZ. The other reason is that there is a small amount of implicit criticism of Obama that can possibly be inferred that he should already have had a speech like this on the economy of the future and infrastructure. I DON'T see it that way - more a "Kerry really nailed this" moment. It did not look to me as if anyone there really read the speech or took it on its own merits.

As to "too political" for this time, Kerry spoke of discussing whether to postpone it. The speech is issue oriented rather than a "political" speech. He is expressing a positive vision of what he sees as what we need to do. It is not a speech dealing with AZ - and it was never intended to be nor Kerry's place to give one. The Duer was speaking in terms of the speech OBama will give in Az tomorrow. Anyone would agree that this is NOT appropriate for that - and it is bizarre to even suggest that. Tomorrow's speech will be more like what a religious leader would say and will likely speak of public service and healing - and the stories of those who died or were wounded.

What Klein might mean is that Obama needs a VISION speech analyzing the problems holding back the economy and what he thinks (described at a high, not detailed level) is needed to revitalize the economy. Here, Obama's ideas may not be the same as Kerry's, but there is a need for the President to show the same thoughtfulness that Kerry did here. In addition, he, like Kerry did, needs to make the case that these are things that both sides have an interest in doing - so they should work together.

My guess is that Obama will try to do something of that sort for the State of the Union.

[politicasista]

60. Makes sense

I don't have anything else to add, but do agree with you and everything said here.

Though perhaps Klein should have wrote a separate article. Don't visit WSY much (only to get away from the zoo in GD/P), maybe it is because they very protective of the President; like everyone protective of the Senator. (As should be). They know how the media works, and seeing that Obama has a lot on his plate with death threats, spitballs from the left, right, members of his own party and others with shady agendas, that O and in a lot of ways Biden are seen as the only pols they trust (probably because they are very visible on a daily basis). That isn't fair to Kerry and others, but that's the way it is.

[YvonneCa]

61. I agree. I think a lot of the 'analyzing' being done...

...both in GD and on other blogs has to do with perspective...and the lens with which they view the Obama Presidency. Some are very protective and react defensively. Others have another view. I think Ezra Klein was just wowed by the speech. So was I.

I think JK addressed a serious problem in our country...a problem whose SYMPTOMS are the gridlock in Congress, the hate speech, the violence from Saturday, the lack of civility, etc. And he defined the PROBLEM as a hollowing out of our democracy, economic distress, and the other things President Obama is trying to fix. If we don't get things working...and work together...we will lose our status as FIRST in the world. That is what I heard John Kerry say.

And I think Ezra Klein (and I) hope the President will spell this out, too, for the American people. FWIW, I think he will...during the SOTU. Although he may set the tone...I hope...tonight. :hi:

[politicasista]

62. Apologies for the small disagreement

You too sum that up very well. Thanks. :hi:

[YvonneCa]

64. Politicasista, I think most of us here agree on...

...way more than we disagree on. I value your perspective and enjoy the debate when we see things differently. :grouphug:

[ProSense]

39. Great speech, and Kerry nails it here

<...>

For the last months we’ve watched the news and read the campaign literature and heard a lot the soundbites. We've heard politicians say they won't become a part of Washington. That say they're for small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. But what do they really mean?

Do they want a government too limited to have invented the Internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications? A government too small to give America’s auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? Taxes too low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures disease, and defends our country? We have to get past slogans and soundbites, reason together, and talk in real terms about how America can do its best.

If we are going to balance the budget and create jobs, we can’t pretend that we can do it by just eliminating earmarks and government waste. We have to look at the plain facts of how we did it before, and by the way, you don't have to look far. In the early 1990's, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making tough choices. The Clinton economic plan committed the country to a path of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. We invested in the workforce, in research, in development. We helped new industries. Then, working with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration.

<...>

That's a perfect summary of the flawed thinking that's driving the debate and the real issues that need to be addressed.

[wisteria]

42. Exactly. n/t

[Inuca]

44. Sorry for the analogy, but

that's why I enjoy watching Chris Matthews at times. He can be infuriatingly superficial and silly, but when he is good, he is very good IMHO. Like when he gets some R (and he had a few recently, including from the new House crop) and pushes him/her for answers, real, specific answers. And of course he does not get any usually, but it's nice that he tries and he definitely makes his point. Recently he has asked, in at least a couple of situation, something very similar to what Kerry is saying here, namele "what would you like to cut, specific and important enough to make a difference?" "do you commit to vote for X (controversial)?", etc.

[Inuca]

33. Great summary, Karyn

only adding that the NYC mayor he was talking about was not the current one with his recent snow problems, but Fiorello Laguardia, back in the 30 or so. In other words, not exactly a new issue.

[whometense]

49. Pardon the fangirl affect, but

:loveya:

THAT was inspiring. Damn.

Edited to add that I received an email from JK that alerted me to the speech - I imagine everyone else here did, as well.

Hello Whome, this time of year - and particularly this difficult time when all of our minds are on what happened in Arizona last weekend - call for reflection. And the truth is, we need some real conversation - some honest dialogue - about where we've been these last years and where we're headed, as a country.

This morning I laid out some of my own thoughts - some personal thoughts - and I wanted to share them with all of you. You can see it and read it on the Washington Post by clicking here: http://www.johnkerry.com/page/m/7b924426/659f6c76/79a0f474/26a6f364/1667858759/VEsH/

.

I’ll be back in touch very soon.

John Kerry

[karynnj]

51. As if the speech itself were not enough, look at some of the comments he made afterward.

"I love going to events where people are rightfully contentious sometimes, and they disagree with you and they disagree with you forcefully, but it is civil and you can have a debate about it," he told a small group of reporters after the CAP address. "We can just agree to disagree sometimes."

That's becoming less common, Kerry said.

"Now, it has gotten angrier and people are somehow bitter, and I think one of the reasons is -- and I should have talked about this today -- I think one of the reasons is that a lot of Americans are feeling this slide in their savings, in their jobs, in their incomes, in their health care and their day-to-day lives and they don't see us responding," he said. "So the lack of response from Washington is just driving people, sort of, you know, they don't see the deficit dealt with and the frustration builds enough and I think people are taking that out ... So I hope a lot of people will think about the degree to which we are to blame by not responding adequately to some of these things for the increasing lack of civility."
<snip>
The post-speech remarks, echoing the line that got President Barack Obama in hot water during the 2008 presidential campaign, built upon the basic argument Kerry made during his actual address, in which he spoke about the role "divisive political rhetoric may have played" in the Giffords shooting. But in terms of diagnosing the root causes for Saturday's events, they represent a bit of new ground. Many lawmakers have argued for the need for civility in the past few days. A few have urged Congress to tone down the partisanship. None have made the case that, say, obstructionism in the Senate was poisoning discourse, embittering voters, and, subsequently, in need of examination following the shootings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/kerry-congressional-gridlock-bitter_n_807404.html

The Huffington Post connects Kerry's comment to Obama's bitter comment - even though what was offensive (even to me) in Obama's comments is NOT in Kerry's. Obama spoke of them holding on their guns and religion - implying that it was wrong to vote for anything other than your economic good. In fact, the ONLY thing that connects then is that Kerry and Obama both used the word "bitter".

What is ignored is that Kerry is speaking of people who likely feel betrayed and bewildered by a government that has not protected them. They see that their lives are not the promised American dream - not matter how hard they work. Kerry is not criticizing their reaction - he is empathizing with the conditions that caused it. This is closer to Kerry's 1993 NAFTA comments than to Obama's - and in some ways are a very genuine understanding of people in the less fortunate "other America".

[ladym55]

50. JK sent out the link to the WashPo article and video

I just watched the whole thing. I teared up a few times because THIS is the leadership we so desperately need right now. I have forwarded JK's email to others so they, too, can watch the speech.

In all the noise, we have lost the ability to see what we need to do to move the country and its people forward. I just don't get it. I really don't. What good does it do to have absolute power over a pile of ash or rubble or poverty? What's the point? :shrug:

[Mass]

54. The Globe has it in his edition today

I was wondering if they would cover, considering they had to cover the storm, but they did.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/01/12/partisanship_threatens_us_kerry_says/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Top+political+stories

Kerry calls partisanship a threat
US immobilized as other nations progress, he says

WASHINGTON — Corrosive partisanship is threatening to topple America as a leader in innovation, industry, and science, said US Senator John F. Kerry, stepping into the middle of a national debate about excessive partisanship and vitriol in the public square.

Kerry’s remarks, in a speech yesterday at a Washington think tank, come days after Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was critically wounded and six people were killed in a mass shooting in Tucson.

“Many observers have already reduced this tragedy to simple questions of whether overheated rhetoric is to blame,’’ said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The real issue, he said, is the violence that divisive, overly simplistic dialogue does to our democracy every day.

“There’s a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future if senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real, if we’re willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting sound bites for substance,’’ Kerry said.
...

[karynnj]

57. Interesting comments in a Fox News column on Kerry's speech

Sen. John Kerry was speaking today about the urgency of continuing with the people's work, and while his political views and ours differ dramatically, we think his tone was right on point:

“Someone might ask why, with our country in mourning, we are here this morning continuing to talk about the business of the country. But the truth is that is what Gabrielle Giffords was doing - talking about the business of the country. And the truth is, talking about the business of our country is more urgent than ever.”

We agree. Of course, we believe that the main business of this country right now should be getting government
out of business, which is where we and Sen. Kerry part ways. But we're very glad to see that he hasn't been scared off of a debate on the subject. We can't afford to be afraid of strong debate with so many critical issues hanging in the balance

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/01/12/political-debate-stop/#ixzz1AqNW8u1C

I think this article takes the comments in the way that they are intended - though it is funny to think Kerry would ever be scared off ANY debate. (In fact, just last months, he debated any Republican who wanted to on the senate floor.)

Their comment - We can't afford to be afraid of strong debate with so many critical issues hanging in the balance - seems a good conclusion no matter what side you are on.

[wisteria]

58. Well, they have to put their spin on it, but it is nice to see they acknowledged the speech

and have presented it in a positive way. Could it be that the time has come and both sides want to see things get done in Washington?

[karynnj]

59. There actually is not that much spin

I think both sides do want to see things done in DC - but the things themselves differ. There was never a real way to get health care reform with real bipartisan support, because the Republican ideology does not include the government doing such things.

The next two years of divided power might be best used doing things both sides can agree with. In Kerry's speech infrastructure is positioned as that - but Chris Christie was willing to cancel a badly needed program. Here, it remains to be seen whether there can be even number common ground things to do.

[wisteria]

63. Excellent point about doing things both sides can agree on. Or at least

reach some common ground.

[karynnj]

65. Nice editorial on the speech in a MA newspaper

While America was transfixed by events in Arizona and Massachusetts was coping with another blizzard, Sen. John Kerry was raising larger issues, ones that deserve more of our attention.

In a speech at the Center for American Progress, Kerry warned that partisan gridlock at home is causing the United States to lose ground in the global economy. He listed some facts that should give every thinking American concern:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1390757770/Editorial-Gridlock-and-globalization